Back in January, Geoff Ribbens, Mark Abraham, and Alistair Cumming published a new book entitled Team Leadership: How to Define, Apply, and Measure It, which presents a unique, people-centric, and scientifically researched theory of leadership linked to an accurate data-based assessment and diagnostic product. For individual leaders looking to maximize personal development and results or for organizations wanting to analyze leadership and its effects across an entire structure or business, this book redefines understanding and development.
When I spoke with the authors this month, I asked them a series of questions starting with "What is currently lacking in leadership development?" Here are their responses:
In our book, we start by identifying four major errors that have held back leadership development and understanding for many years. No doubt all of us have made some, or all, of these errors in the past.
The first error is looking at the leader to understand leadership. Eminent social psychologists have stated that this "leader-centric" approach is “deeply flawed” and not at all useful. We expand on why it is so flawed in the book. We conclude that it is much more useful to concentrate on the perception of those being led.
The second error is to assume that the term "leadership" means the same in a multitude of different contexts such as political leadership, moral leadership, organizational leadership, and team leadership. Different contexts obviously require different definitions and approaches. This is why the book concentrates on the "leadership" of teams.
The third error is to assume that "business success" equates with leadership. This approach only states what the writer hopes leadership will deliver, not what it is. It also assumes that the only people who have leadership are senior managers and CEOs.
The fourth error is simple. Nowhere in our research do we find a definition of the term ‘leadership’ that was objective and measurable.
MS: “So what is the solution to all these myths, assumptions, and lack of definition?”
All the assumptions and errors above have been solved by our innovative approach called Emergent Team Leadership (ETL). We focus on the leadership of teams, whether it is the executive team or the team on the factory floor. We show that all team leaders at every level, have the potential to have "leadership" and it is now measurable.
ETL measures the degree to which team members "willingly and enthusiastically accept their team leader." By examining how team members perceive their leader we created a 12-point profile. The profile is created by the team members, it might not be how the leader perceives themselves or is perceived by the organization. The profile is a simple radar graph and is easy to understand.
MS: “So why focus on teams and team leaders?”
The relationship between the team and the team leader is fundamental to team and organizational performance. If team members "willingly and enthusiastically accept their leader’" then the team leader is more able to deliver positive results because the team supports them. Also, team and team leader well-being is achieved, and there is less disagreement and conflict.
MS: "I can see the improved well-being of the team and team leader but are there any other benefits?
The simple 12-point profile indicates to the team leader what they need to do to move from merely managing their team to the true leadership of that team. The profile is not based on the leader’s personality but on the team’s perception. What is important is that the leader can change that perception. The leader is not a ‘servant’ of the team but can increase their influence by understanding how their team perceives them.
There are many benefits for the team, the team leader, and the whole organization. One obvious benefit is that for the first time leadership training, coaching, or appraising can be tested and retested, and progress can be measured. Our research also found that team leaders themselves found the 12-point profile powerful and relevant, more relevant than other leadership assessment processes they had experienced. If an organization uses ETL this can have a profound positive effect on the organization’s whole team leadership culture.
What do you think of the authors' (Geoff Ribbens, Mark Abraham, and Alistair Cumming) view on the current state of leadership development? Do you agree with what the authors perceive as errors and their proposed solutions?
